In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.
During WW II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun-control message to all of your friends.
The purpose of fighting is to win.
There is no possible victory in defense.
The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain.
All else is supplemental.
SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
SWITZERLAND 'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED
COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
IT'S A NO BRAINER!
DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT
TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.
Fact are facts! This is why we will not give up our guns. The fact of the matter is that we have a duty to defend ourselves and our family. Some of you would prefer to hind you heads in the sand and ignore that responsibility and that is your right but it is not your say to strip me and mine of our rights.
ReplyDeleteAn armed society is a polite society.
To those of you who want gun control - go to Hell you useful idiots ...
As passed by the Congress:
ReplyDeleteA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[8]
In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]
deterring tyrannical government;[34]
repelling invasion;
suppressing insurrection;
facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
participating in law enforcement;
enabling the people to organize a militia system.
It is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence; and as Mr. Blackstone observes, it is to be made use of when the sanctions of society and law are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.[37]
as Alexander Hamilton explained in 1788:
[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude[,] that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.[47][48]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Patrick Henry, in the Virginia ratification convention June 5, 1788, argued for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression:
ReplyDeleteGuard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.[84]
excellent addition William....
DeleteI tried explaining to someone the other day about Germany and gun control the other day.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the additional supporting information.
Food for thought. You will all die some day and the world will continue to turn without you. No matter how powerful one feels, there is always someone more powerful, and likely, better armed.
ReplyDeleteHave a nice day.
Do you lock your doors at night? Food for thought, you will die someday and the world will continue to turn without you... YOU do not have to fight it - be my guest and do not lock your door as all you have are "things"....
DeleteSt. John's Church, Richmond, Virginia
DeleteMarch 23, 1775.
,,,,,"They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable²and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace²but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
Hey Max, I'm certain a lot of Jews comforted themselves with exactly that thought. NOT.
DeletePatrick Henry, one of the greatest orators of all time. Qualified to stand on the same podium as all the other great ones. BUT, can you carry his message, some two plus centuries along the road of development? What resonance does his liberty or death call have for the little children? They and their parents suffered the ultimate consequence of the macho philosophy which has grown out of a failed resolution in the 2nd amendment.
ReplyDeleteIn the same way you carried a man to the moon as the apogee of American achievement in the 20th century, why not try to achieve safety at home as the achievement of the 21st.If you continue to kill each other with guns you do not understand, there will be nothing left for the next generations to venerate in the way you now venerate, at least in principle, your founders.
Cheers friends
From Aussie
I beg to differ King. I believe our apogee of achievement in the 20th century was the freeing of those lost souls behind the iron curtain. Those slaves to communism that Ronald Reagan encouraged to throw off their shackles.
ReplyDeleteRR used our strength in both offensive and defensive weapons, nary a shot was fired. The wall came down.
"Those slaves to communism that Ronald Reagan encouraged to throw off their shackles."
DeleteNo doubt people like Lech Walesa had no inspiration before Reagan eh?
Lech, the Pope, and Maggie were important. But RR provided the glue. The deny that is to ignore the scope of history.
DeleteWilliam and Max
ReplyDeleteMy thanks for broadening the debate; what pleasure we can derive from correspondence such as this.
William thinks the USA and particularly RR is responsible for the collapse of the USSR. Max considers Walensa had a bearing on the outcome. Additionally William invites us to look at history if we wish to disagree with his position.
Well I for one am happy to look at history, and I am the first to acknowledge that Post WW2 America carried the load in the ideological battle Against Soviet style Socialism.
Prior to the end of the war the Yalta conference set down various provisions for European redevelopment and new national borders. It was at this conference that the Brits first voiced their concern that a Soviet Bloc was about to be declared. They were also the first to identify with and condemn the Iron Curtain. (The “Berlin Wall’ was not the Iron Curtain ;) that encompassed the entire Soviet bloc. The wall was just part of it.
It was of significant importance that the US had developed and exploded the Atom bomb and at about this time Russia accelerated the credo of the USSR Previously of course there was a loose coalition.
The establishment of the USSR of course set the boundaries of the next 40 odd years as America and her allies tried to repel the worldwide spread of communisms. Korea was first and this fitted in well with the Monroe doctrine, still a cornerstone of US foreign policy since about 1832. “Fight our enemy far from the shores of continental America” sums up the ideals of this excellent policy.
Many small spot fires were curtailed or allowed to smoulder, depending on the needs of industry or the incumbent administration and this led to the final major anti communist programme which became the disaster of Vietnam. I personally feel that the actions following Vietnam were simply exercises designed to show the world that America was still the super power. Iraq no 1 was defensible as Kuwait was an ally and had oil. Iraq no 2 was indefensible following the proof that Sadam had no weapons of mass destruction.
In all three of these conflicts Australia was at the elbow of America as were the Brits.
Max has pointed out that Poland had a major hand in tearing down the Iron Curtain, quite true but discontent and trouble was also experienced in Hungary, GDR, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia and Romania. Remember the end of their leader and his wife?
Finally, economic collapse caused the break-up of the USSR and although America for half a century had worked towards this end, it is my view that a poisonous system poisoned itself. Much as I admire America and even more its people, I am just a little concerned that the economic system, under which you live, may yet have a similar effect on my friends in your great country.
Now, I do not expect praise for this, rather some abuse but please keep it constructive and perhaps we can continue an excellent debate.
Cheers from Aussie
Your answer is long Kingston, and that's what it looks like when a person makes a rational and well supported answer. Many in this country have no time or patience to understand the bigger picutre you are providing. I remember well what happened to Nicolae Ceaușescu, and Reagan had nothing at all to do with that. Your last para is spot on, the corruption and collapse of communism had much to do with hubris, a situation not at all foriegn to this country right now.
DeleteI don't know what to say anymore Kingston. I seldom disagree with you and I see nothing you posted here as a reason to heap abuse on you. I could be wrong, but I sense you take my posts no more seriously then you do Williams. So, Hat's off to your post here as it is very good and I'll leave it at that. No matter how much context you try to provide, you will not change a mind on this site that is committed to a view that is both laughable for it's lack of perspective and scary in it's ability to dismiss anything that challenges it. That is the nature of politics in America today. And you are correct, it will damage everyone eventually if not reigned in
Your summary King is fairly predictable. I would mention that FDR, being a staunch socialist, sold those that ended up behind the curtain down river Stalin at Yalta. Of course FDR's "experiments" both social and economic were disasters for our country and the world. A reading of "The Forgotten Man" will give a proper perspective of this period. Many previously supported the idea that WWII ended the socialist great depression. In fact it was in response to the slashes to regulation following the war that lead to prosperity which lasted until the JFK-LBJ Asian "conflict."
DeleteSoviet communism was doomed to collapse if it's own weight, as Chinese communism ultimately will also. Marxism is a failed ideology with limited shelf life for various leftist regimes. Note: N.Korea, Cuba, Angola, Vietnam,,, all wasting the lives of the poor souls trapped within.
Following the demise of the USSR our standing as the lone remaining superpower has of course focused everyone's attention in our direction. America does not have a corner on the above average DNA market. We share our ups and downs with our friends and foes. What we do possess is the longest running revolutionary constitution on earth. Despite our present occupant of the white house who wears his hubris on his lapel we will continue to stand with Jefferson, Washington, and Reagan providing a gale at our backs.
1773-2009
"Soviet communism was doomed to collapse if it's own weight,"
DeleteWait, I thought it was a throbbing monster til Reagan slayed it.
Without RR, Maggie, the Pope and Lech it may have enslaved another couple of generations before collapsing.
DeleteMax and William My thanks to you both for your responses. With the summery of William I can take no umbrage but would add a small correction that he tends to keep his reasoning within the US economic sphere. The resurgence of the US economy post WW2 was inevitable but in other countries, particularly Britain and the dominions (as they then were) there was great privation. Britain in fact turned out Churchill and elected Atlee and the socialist government which led to nationalization of almost the complete UK economy.
ReplyDeleteI find the reply from Max a little more difficult in that he appears to call for definitions of personalities or even a little ego massage. Let me start by saying that I find the two opposite sides of the spectrum most interesting. I can agree with you both on occasions and on others I strongly disagree. I always take your posts seriously, to do otherwise would be a waste of time for all those who are involved here and would be insulting to you both.
Before starting this, I imagined a finite line as the spectrum of political thought. I then placed the three of us in positions I thought appropriate. Max is well to the left of centre, and even to the left of Nancy Pelosi. I am certainly to the right of centre but not as far right as William.
William is the interesting one among us to a foreigner. I see William somewhere around Boston perhaps storming the British ship loaded with tea; he would be close to Hancock and would then deviate towards politics. William would participate in the congress leading to the declaration of independence and then into the thick of battle. Following the Cornwallis surrender at Yorktown, William would see the necessity of bringing the states under one central government and the need for a constitution. Somehow I do not think William was impressed with the constitution and its ratification was only achieved through the 12 amendments (one still not ratified I believe) which was the bill of rights debated in Congress and issued by that body. William now satisfied and being tired from his labors, emulated Rip Van Winkle and slept undisturbed, not for forty years but for 200. In the last decade the tea party movement has evolved in America and William has again rallied to the call. What gives him away are the revolutionary hat and the wig and britches he wore at the time of falling asleep.
Cheers everyone and let us not take ourselves too seriously. From Aussie
I often awoke with dents in my pillow. Must have been that darn pointy hat.
DeleteSeriously King, it behooves us to discuss Lincoln's role. As I mature my studies have turned my head away from the propaganda surrounding Abe and his union.
"Max is well to the left of centre, and even to the left of Nancy Pelosi."
DeleteSays the man calling for a ban on guns in this country. It's a matter of perspective Kingston. The social fabric of your country is much, much different from ours. Perhaps in your country you are right of center. With your views, you would not be here. To be called left of center of someone I don't have much respect for is annoying. Well played in trolling me on that. What exactly it is in my outlook that makes me left of Pelosi would be interesting to hear sometime.
You've served up a good reminder again though, this entire site is one ego stroking proposition. A true debate would be something that not only is factual, but would include enough open mindedness on the part of the people involved to actually be swayed to a new way of looking at things. This is not what we have here. I find it humorous, for lack of a better word, that you catch the most shit here from alleged conservatives. What always brings me back is hope that a discussion may pop up from time to time with ideas about what actually leads to a thriving society and what sorts of things are in the best interest of a civilized society to pursue. What we have instead are dated recitations of thinkers long dead. It's interesting at times, but I'd say most of us are just here to spew and run.
http://www.fox19.com/story/20538164/piers-morgan-vs-alex-jones-the-truth-about-gun-homicide-rates
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0&feature=youtu.be
ReplyDelete